Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
Doesn't this imply that the Quintavalle/bleach issue was handled very badly by AK/RS's defence teams at trial? I believe this shows further evidence of an inadequate defence...

Did my eyes deceive me, or did I see Dalla Vedova and Ghirga representing AK at the beginning of the criminal slander (oooops, calumny - sorry Fulcanelli) trial the other day? Bruce, do you (or anyone else) know whether AK will be engaging any other Italian legal representation for the appeal?* In the UK and US, there are specialist post-conviction attorneys who specialise in appeals, and it seems to me that one such lawyer would be both appropriate and necessary for both AK and RS.

* I understand that Ted Simon has been added, but I'm specifically thinking here about experts in the Italian appeals system (and good Italian lawyers in general, for that matter).
Click to expand...


I agree with you on this one. I thought Amanda's defense team did a poor job and neither Amanda's team nor Raffaele's team acted like they were on the same team.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Quintavalle will be attacked very strongly in the Appeal. He was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. There were no receipts for bleach, in fact there was a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already.
Click to expand...

False. He was only asked if he'd seen Raffaele. He was never asked if he'd seen Amanda. This is in the report (which you haven't read).


False. He never claimed 'Amanda didn't buy anything'. He stated he didn't know if she bought anything or not because he didn't continue watching her (which again, is in that report which you haven't read).

Straw man. Nobody ever claimed Amanda 'bought bleach detergent' or used it in the cottage.

And still we wait for this evidence that there was bleach detergent at the cottage, evidence that was never presented at the trial.

Bruce Fisher said:
Second, it's not incumbent upon the defence in any criminal trial to "bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence". If Fulcanelli believes this, then he needs to do "Criminal law 101" as well. The only job of the defence is to plant reasonable doubt in jurors' minds over evidence presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof falls wholly and exclusively with the prosecution.
Click to expand...

It is when the prosecution have provided evidence showing they are guilty. They don't 'have' to provide evidence of innocence (the accused don't even 'have' to attend their trial), but they can hardly then complain when they are found guilty.

Bruce Fisher said:
Sometimes, defence lawyers feel that the best way to demonstrate reasonable doubt in the prosecution case is to create an alternate scenario - one in which the defendants are innocent. But this is in fact relatively rare. And indeed sometimes, the defence may not even want to demonstrate their clients' innocence - all they need to do is to persuade jurors that there is reasonable doubt of their clients' guilt (which - it bears repeating - doesn't require the jury to believe that the defendants are innocent) The defence can even say absolutely nothing during a trial if they want to, if they feel the prosecution's case is sufficient weak on its own (but this is admittedly very rare).
Click to expand...

The defence did offer an 'alternate' [sic] scenario. It was pants.


Bruce Fisher said:
And this situation will be exactly the same in the forthcoming appeal(s) in this case. All the defence will be required to do will be to raise valid questions about the quality and safety of the prosecution's evidence, to a level that implies reasonable doubt. The defence will not have to offer an alternative explanation based on their clients' innocence.
Click to expand...

And 'valid' is the stumbling block for the defence, as it has always been, isn't it Bruce?
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Amanda and Raffaele both have excellent defense teams. They were put into an impossible position. I know that Fulcanelli and his cult of loyal followers refuse to see it but the jury went into that courtroom on day one with their minds made up.

Imagine trying to defend your client and PMF is the jury.

It is not the fault of the defense attorneys that testimony was completely ignored.

A police officer took the stand and testified that Quintavalle told him that he did not see Amanda in the store on November 2nd.

It was ignored. What can the attorneys do about that?
Click to expand...

Well, if that's the case, then one would hope that the appeals process would correct that imbalance as a matter of huge priority. Either way (i.e. either previous defence incompetence or juror bias), issues like these could well add up to sufficient doubts over the safety of the convictions.
 
RoseMontague said:
I agree with you on this one. I thought Amanda's defense team did a poor job and neither Amanda's team nor Raffaele's team acted like they were on the same team.
Click to expand...

Raffaele's lawyer spent quite a bit of time defending Amanda at the end of the trial. They are on the same page. Amanda and Raffaele will continue to defend their innocence together.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher
Quintavalle will be attacked very strongly in the Appeal. He was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. There were no receipts for bleach, in fact there was a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already.

False. He was only asked if he'd seen Raffaele. He was never asked if he'd seen Amanda. This is in the report (which you haven't read).


False. He never claimed 'Amanda didn't buy anything'. He stated he didn't know if she bought anything or not because he didn't continue watching her.

Straw man. Nobody ever claimed Amanda 'bought bleach detergent' or used it in the cottage.

And still we wait for this evidence that there was bleach detergent at the cottage, evidence that was never presented at the trial.

Originally Posted by Bruce FisherSecond, it's not incumbent upon the defence in any criminal trial to "bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence". If Fulcanelli believes this, then he needs to do "Criminal law 101" as well. The only job of the defence is to plant reasonable doubt in jurors' minds over evidence presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof falls wholly and exclusively with the prosecution.
It is when the prosecution have provided evidence showing they are guilty. They don't 'have' to provide evidence of innocence (the accused don't even 'have' to attend their trial), but they can hardly then complain when they are found guilty.

Originally Posted by Bruce FisherSometimes, defence lawyers feel that the best way to demonstrate reasonable doubt in the prosecution case is to create an alternate scenario - one in which the defendants are innocent. But this is in fact relatively rare. And indeed sometimes, the defence may not even want to demonstrate their clients' innocence - all they need to do is to persuade jurors that there is reasonable doubt of their clients' guilt (which - it bears repeating - doesn't require the jury to believe that the defendants are innocent) The defence can even say absolutely nothing during a trial if they want to, if they feel the prosecution's case is sufficient weak on its own (but this is admittedly very rare).
The defence did offer an 'alternate' [sic] scenario. It was pants.


Originally Posted by Bruce FisherAnd this situation will be exactly the same in the forthcoming appeal(s) in this case. All the defence will be required to do will be to raise valid questions about the quality and safety of the prosecution's evidence, to a level that implies reasonable doubt. The defence will not have to offer an alternative explanation based on their clients' innocence.
And 'valid' is the stumbling block for the defence, as it has always been, isn't it Bruce?
Click to expand...

Fulcanelli, stop drinking! Most of these quotes aren't mine! All of the highlighted posts are not mine. You are clearly getting frustrated. You should take a break.
 
Last edited:
Fulcanelli said:
False. He was only asked if he'd seen Raffaele. He was never asked if he'd seen Amanda. This is in the report (which you haven't read).
Click to expand...

For the love of Dog, will Fulcanelli (and others) please stop going on about this ******* Massei report? What Quintavalle was and wasn't asked is NOT exclusively contained within the Massei report. It is in the court transcripts and in contemporaneous reports from that time. E.g.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=7140361&page=1

(published on March 21st 2009, the day after Quintavalle gave his testimony in court....)

Nobody needs the Massei report to find out what was and wasn't said in this instance or any other instance. It is not - repeat not - the Holy Grail of this case.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Dr. Stefanoni claimed the Luminol bare foot prints were never tested for blood however in July 2009 the notes confirmed the material was tested with tetramethylbenzidine which is extremely sensitive for blood and all tested negative.
Click to expand...

WOW!!!
Is that then what a layman would consider "lying" to the court?
Is this the same Dr. who walked out of court when questioned about her work?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Bruce said:
Amanda and Raffaele both have excellent defense teams. They were put into an impossible position. I know that Fulcanelli and his cult of loyal followers refuse to see it but the jury went into that courtroom on day one with their minds made up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was just 'bad luck' that they were found guilty, in a unanimous verdict ;)

As for me, I have no followers...I'm a 'Lone Wolf' ;)
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Fulcanelli, stop drinking! Most of these quotes aren't mine!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was me.

And if Fulcanelli is going to start correcting a grammatical error of mine, he can expect a whole load of corrections over his own writing (as a mere starting-off hint: "its", when used in the possessive sense, has no apostrophe. "It's", on the other hand, only means "it is" or "it has").
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Raffaele's lawyer spent quite a bit of time defending Amanda at the end of the trial. They are on the same page. Amanda and Raffaele will continue to defend their innocence together.
Click to expand...

Honestly, Bruce, my bet is that the two teams are going separate ways with the appeal. Having one expert say she was attacked from the front and the other expert say she was attacked from the rear does not speak well for a co-ordinated defense. I have seen reports that Raffaele's team may have regretted that move you mention at the end of the trial, and they immediately begin to consider going a different direction on appeal.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Raffaele's lawyer spent quite a bit of time defending Amanda at the end of the trial. They are on the same page. Amanda and Raffaele will continue to defend their innocence together.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, you mean the 'speech'. They all made speeches. And the only reasons that was made on Amanda's part is because:

a) Their fates are entwined...there is a case for saying they 'need' each other

b) Amanda's defence didn't attempt to throw Raffaele under the bus

And it should be pointed out, Raffaele's team's decision to defend Amanda was made 'at the last minute'. It was touch and go...they were going to throw her under the bus. Unfortunately (for Raffaele), Bongiourno's little stunt at claiming illness didn't give their team a rescheduling to provide their closing arguments 'after' Amanda's team, as was intended. They had to stick with the schedule and go first. Lucky for you ;)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Wrong on both counts unfortunately. Time to brush up on "Democracy 101". The three branches of government in a modern democracy (including Italy) are the Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judiciary branch. Now it's certainly true to say that the Judiciary should be kept entirely separate and at arms length from from the Executive. But the Judiciary is most certainly a branch of government.

Second, it's not incumbent upon the defence in any criminal trial to "bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence". If Fulcanelli believes this, then he needs to do "Criminal law 101" as well. The only job of the defence is to plant reasonable doubt in jurors' minds over evidence presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof falls wholly and exclusively with the prosecution.

Sometimes, defence lawyers feel that the best way to demonstrate reasonable doubt in the prosecution case is to create an alternate scenario - one in which the defendants are innocent. But this is in fact relatively rare. And indeed sometimes, the defence may not even want to demonstrate their clients' innocence - all they need to do is to persuade jurors that there is reasonable doubt of their clients' guilt (which - it bears repeating - doesn't require the jury to believe that the defendants are innocent) The defence can even say absolutely nothing during a trial if they want to, if they feel the prosecution's case is sufficient weak on its own (but this is admittedly very rare).

And this situation will be exactly the same in the forthcoming appeal(s) in this case. All the defence will be required to do will be to raise valid questions about the quality and safety of the prosecution's evidence, to a level that implies reasonable doubt. The defence will not have to offer an alternative explanation based on their clients' innocence.
Click to expand...

Hi LondonJohn,
As a guy who originally thought that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox
were guilty from reading the early media reports, BUT who casually followed the trial thru website reading,
I found much to believe that "reasonable doubt" existed in this particular case, and I was suprised, dismayed, and saddened when the guilty verdicts were given and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox DID NOT get to go home, yet...

I believe this case has so much room for reasonable doubt that the juror's MUST have just been towing the line, so to speak, for the media and the prosecution had already convicted Amanda "Foxy" Knox and Raffaele Sollecito before the trial even started...

Can you imagine the UPROAR in Italy if they had been found innocent?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Second, it's not incumbent upon the defence in any criminal trial to "bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence". If Fulcanelli believes this, then he needs to do "Criminal law 101" as well. The only job of the defence is to plant reasonable doubt in jurors' minds over evidence presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof falls wholly and exclusively with the prosecution.
Click to expand...


Fulcanelli said:
It is when the prosecution have provided evidence showing they are guilty. They don't 'have' to provide evidence of innocence (the accused don't even 'have' to attend their trial), but they can hardly then complain when they are found guilty.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. In every criminal trial, the prosecution offers evidence showing that the defendants are guilty.. Otherwise the prosecution would have no case to present. And in no way does this mean that the defence have to (or would choose to) offer an alternative scenario based on their clients' innocence.

I would repeat - once again - that the defence does not have to prove their clients' innocence in order to achieve a "not guilty" verdict. I am bolding this because I still truly don't believe that Fulcanelli (or indeed some others) understand this vital point. The defence merely has to challenge the prosecution's case to the level of raising reasonable doubt. And if the defence feel that they have done a sufficient job of raising reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case, then they have every right to feel aggrieved if the jury votes for guilt. To repeat: it's not bad defence practice to purely concentrate on attacking the prosecution's case, without offering an alternative scenario based on your client's innocence.

Not a law school graduate, I think it's fair to say........
 
LondonJohn said:
Wrong on both counts unfortunately. Time to brush up on "Democracy 101". The three branches of government in a modern democracy (including Italy) are the Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judiciary branch. Now it's certainly true to say that the Judiciary should be kept entirely separate and at arms length from from the Executive. But the Judiciary is most certainly a branch of government.
Click to expand...

Stop being a Little Englander and get out of England. We're not talking about England, but how things work in Italy.
 
RoseMontague said:
Honestly, Bruce, my bet is that the two teams are going separate ways with the appeal. Having one expert say she was attacked from the front and the other expert say she was attacked from the rear does not speak well for a co-ordinated defense. I have seen reports that Raffaele's team may have regretted that move you mention at the end of the trial, and they immediately begin to consider going a different direction on appeal.
Click to expand...

I have been told otherwise. I guess we will have to wait and see.
 
Fulcanelli said:
Stop being a Little Englander and get out of England. We're not talking about England, but how things work in Italy.
Click to expand...

Yep, you definitely need a holiday. Where am I talking about England here? Where exactly? I'm talking about the democratic system of government - which is in place (the last time I looked) in the USA, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Canada, Belgium.............. In fact, I specifically mentioned Italy parenthetically as one such country in my original post, but you might have failed to spot that in your anger and haste.

Very, very poor arguing, I'm afraid. In fact you might consider editing this post of yours. Maybe by removing all the words it contained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom